Gingrich: For attacking Qaddafi before he was against it?

posted at 6:40 pm on March 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Ace thinks so and so do I, but I’ll let you judge for yourselves. Dave Weigel has the two key quotes side by side. On March 7, Greta Van Susteren asked him, “The president has said that military options with NATO are not off the table. What would you do about Libya?” His answer: No-fly zone, ASAP. “This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” The key bit:

The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.

So, get Qaddafi and prevent a bloodbath. Fast-forward to his interview this morning on the Today show and suddenly preventing bloodbaths are less of a priority:

The standard [Obama] has fallen back to of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn’t a serious standard. This is a public relations conversation…

I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

That echoes what he told Politico this weekend, after the mission began, about Iran and North Korea being bigger threats and humanitarian disasters happening all over the world. In fact, he posed four questions for The One that he neglected to raise when he condoned a no-fly zone a few weeks earlier with Greta:

• “What is the Obama standard [for deciding to intervene]?”

• “What is success?”

• “What are we prepared to do to achieve that success?”

• “What supplemental is the president prepared to ask for to pay for all this?”

Prior to the president’s March 3 declaration that Qaddafi must go, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve the desired result with no United States forces. The president took those options off the table on March 3.

Newt said on March 7 that the president should established in short order a no-fly zone when Gingrich understood that the president’s goal was regime change. What to do about Libya was pre-March 3 question. But from the moment of the president’s declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line. Now, anything short of regime change is a defeat for the United States.

The president’s new policy announced on March 19 which Gingrich also reacted to, no longer included replacing Qaddafi but was narrowed to a “humanitarian” mission and that became the rationale for intervention causing great confusion given the president’s previously stated goal. Mullen on Meet the Press this past Sunday underscored the narrow scope of the new policy, saying that “the goals of this campaign right now again are limited, and it isn’t about seeing [Qaddafi] go.”

The president’s stated goal of removing Qaddafi changed. Gingrich’s goal of removing Qaddafi since the president made that his goal for the U.S. has not changed.

The only rational purpose for an intervention is to replace Qaddafi.

In other words, when Greta asked him, “What would you do?”, Newt supposedly thought she meant, “How would you advise the president now that he’s committed to regime change?” But … Greta didn’t ask him that. And if she had, he could have given her the same answer he gave Matt Lauer this morning — that military intervention is a bad idea, that there are diplomatic and economic ways to pressure Qaddafi, etc, but now that Obama’s put U.S. prestige on the line, we have no choice but to put some birds in the air. He didn’t say that. How come?

In response to his explanation this afternoon, Think Progress dug around and found a clip of him on Fox back in February sounding gung ho for stronger condemnation of Qaddafi by Obama. Watch below. He doesn’t say anything about military intervention, but Newt hasn’t been shy in the past about condoning international military action to prevent mass slaughter by rogue regimes of their own people. Exit question: Is this anti-Obama pandering or just a big misunderstanding?

Update: Newt elaborates on his team’s defense in a Facebook post, stressing that Obama’s dithering and the UN’s weak mandate (humanitarian, not regime change) changed the calculus of the decision to intervene by March 23.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

He’s a good politician in some respects. He knows American history. He frames a debate very well and is exceptional at summarizing a point of view in one sentence. He also understands policy better than most. We need a lot more people as eloquent as him on our side. Which is why it’s so disappointing when he pulls all this other Newt stuff, which seems to happen at least once a year.

No doubt a NFZ implemented 3 weeks earlier may have had a completely different result than this one’s likely outcome, but Newt and Sarah and everyone else, including me, who was in favor of a NFZ need to own up. We did not ask enough (or any) questions about the rebels. They are, in all likelihood, Islamists.

If so, this is a war the United States cannot win, no matter what happens.

He’s a good politician in some respects. He knows American history. He frames a debate very well and is exceptional at summarizing a point of view in one sentence. He also understands policy better than most. We need a lot more people as eloquent as him on our side. Which is why it’s so disappointing when he pulls all this other Newt stuff, which seems to happen at least once a year.

I think Newt has a defensible position. Doing the no-fly zone early in March could have headed off a larger massacre, but instead they let the brutal cat out of the bag, and then declared teh no-fly option…too little, too laqte, and with no clear objectives.

When your morals are shaky, it doesn’t matter how “smart” you are. Newt’s inability to commit to a political position is absolutely predictable, given that he can’t commit to a spouse. Not that he is alone in that.

No doubt a NFZ implemented 3 weeks earlier may have had a completely different result than this one’s likely outcome, but Newt and Sarah and everyone else, including me, who was in favor of a NFZ need to own up. We did not ask enough (or any) questions about the rebels. They are, in all likelihood, Islamists. If so, this is a war the United States cannot win, no matter what happens.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Yes. I’ve been suspicious from the get-go about who these “rebels” are. You know, there aren’t many people over in the ME who know much about democracy. Also, it looks like Egypt elections may go to the Muslim Brotherhood. So there ya go.

No doubt a NFZ implemented 3 weeks earlier may have had a completely different result than this one’s likely outcome, but Newt and Sarah and everyone else, including me, who was in favor of a NFZ need to own up.

There is a difference between saying we should assault the beaches at Normandy and we shouldn’t have to add that yes, we should let the soldiers bring their weapons with them.

The idiocy of how this has been conducted is something I have never seen before. A steering committee? Gates shrieking at the British that Qaddafi is safe from us? We are just bombing, strafing and killing but its not a war?

We did not ask enough (or any) questions about the rebels. They are, in all likelihood, Islamists.

If so, this is a war the United States cannot win, no matter what happens.

Basilsbest on March 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The same nasty government with Qaddafi dead is a win for us and weeks ago could have been done easily.

We all watched as they dithered and wasted time and Qaddafi advanced and literally days if not hours before the end… then they decide to intervene?

I’d rather he take a bow and exit public life. He had his day in the limelight, and that was a long time ago. Now he’s becoming more of a caricature every time he opens his mouth. Give him a few years and he’ll be the Republican Jimmuh Carter.

Newt’s problem is just like the Miami Heat’s point guard Mario Chalmers. Rio brings a lot of energy to the game, manages to cover up his defensive deficiencies with some great steals, hits the open 3′s, and then – out of the blue – makes some *&#T$!!ing blunder that you want to kick his butt for.

Oh well. Newt’s explanation is about 96.7% more coherent than Bamster’s.

The same nasty government with Qaddafi dead is a win for us and weeks ago could have been done easily.

We all watched as they dithered and wasted time and Qaddafi advanced and literally days if not hours before the end… then they decide to intervene?

I will come clean that we cannot win with this clown posse in charge.

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 7:03 PM

No sale. The rebels are a rabble. If we set up an NFZ 3 weeks ago Momo would still be in place. The only way he’s going is if we take him out and that was not an option then and it isn’t an option now.

You’re right, it would be short weekend’s work if we put our soldiers in there. But you know that was never going to happen. What would the Arab League say to another “occupation” of a Muslim nation in the ME?

Update: Newt elaborates on his team’s defense in a Facebook post, stressing that Obama’s dithering and the UN’s weak mandate (humanitarian, not regime change) changed the calculus of the decision to intervene by March 23.

What would the Arab League say to another “occupation” of a Muslim nation in the ME?

MJBrutus on March 23, 2011 at 7:32 PM

I really don’t think you can imagine how little I give a damn what the Arab League says or does. They can prance about shrieking ‘Crusader’ and ‘colonialism’ all they want. They are not our friends and they are not our allies, and only a fool would take counsel from those who have nothing but hostile intentions towards them.

I want them to fear what we might do and the worse motives they think we posses the better. They are not motivated by friendship and they respond to kindness with contempt and murder.

I really don’t think you can imagine how little I give a damn what the Arab League says or does.

sharrukin on March 23, 2011 at 7:38 PM

You couldn’t possibly care about them less than I do. But that doesn’t matter. Not a single pol from either party would make a move to piss them off. That’s why I say, it is not and has never been option.

This is no surprise. Newt is always hoping bandwagons and pushing to get in the front. He jumped on the one for a no-fly zone when that sounded the most popular, and as soon as the criticism got loud over the weekend, hopped to the bandwagon going the other way.

Matt Lauer made mincemeat outta Newt. He came off as wishy washy on Libya. The Germans are already backing out of Zero’s coalition so now who is going to get the hand off? France? Wanta see Sarkozy fade outta the picture faster than…he’s gone already.

Gingrich may be more correct on the issues than Bill Clinton, but he shares an ego with Clinton that makes him believe that, even in the YouTube era, he’s so much smarter than the voters he can say one thing here and another thing there and get away with the contradiction, because no one’s going to put the contradictory statements together.

He supported the “no fly zone” action, stuck his finger in the air after Friday’s U.N. vote and decided the hard-core on the right would be mostly against Obama’s late agreement on the “no fly zone” and decided getting in shots at Obama trumped any ideological policy consistency. And while he may be right that most on the right aren’t backing Obama’s move, Newt’s history of these strategic pivots makes you think if he’ll do it here, he might do an even worse pivot as president if the polling data came back the wrong way.

Newt is valuable as an idea man, but he isn’t good at formulating a policy or a plan…because he gets so wrapped up in one thing that he doesn’t adequately factor in consequences, alternatives, and backup plans.

This is why he shouldn’t be in charge, and he should never work alone.

I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Here’s the problem with this statement.
I saw and listen to this clip, Newt was cut off mid sentence.

“I would not have used American and European forces” is not the end of the sentence, they just cut off what ever was said after “forces”.

I need the complete sentence to know what the complete sentence was.

The other problem with these 2 statements are apples and oranges. One statement is in reference to removing Daffy from power, using the military, Newt clearly says yes to this.

The other statement is to use our military for some undefined humanitarian effort that leaves Daffy in power. Not sure exactly how Newt answered this cuz they cut his reply off.

Personally I’m for removing Daffy from power, using the military and against using our military for some undefined humanitarian effort that leaves Daffy in power.